Somali woman stoned to death

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8366197.stm

This is a BBC article about a woman who was divorced but had sex with an unmarried man and was consequently buried to the waste and stoned to death by a crowd of 200 people after local Somali authorities claimed that this is the procedure which the Qur’an says to follow. First off, I do not recall ever seeing anything about this in the Qur’an, nor to do recall reading anything which could possibly be interpreted as instructions to this end.

So this is the point this raises for me: I will go ahead and agree that there is a bias in the Western media and we are given stories and images often designed to convince us that Muslims are monsters and Islam is this horrible scary thing. But does that mean that things like the events of this article DON’T occur? I can’t bring myself to dismiss the content article as “Western media bias” and yes, it does negatively impact my view of Islamic governance. I am not implying that a positive and just Islamic state is impossible, but here is a real-life contemporary example of a government claiming to be of the Qur’an and having organized public stonings. Bias or not, this did really happen and really was said to be justified in the name of Islam.

re: bin laden and peanut shells

When I eat peanuts with the shells, I typically suck on the shells before cracking them open because I like the salt. I hope the shells thrown at you had not been sucked on. That would make the story grosser.

 

Is it justified or unjustified? I don’t think it can be answered in such black and white terms. That one song by Buffalo Springfield says, “nobody’s right when everybody’s wrong” and I think this fits the situation quite well. I agree that America as an entity out there in the world is overwhelmingly arrogant and that our media facilitates ignorance and arrogance running rampant throughout the American public. However, it is also easy to observe this and move to the other extreme and get carried away condemning America and Americans in order to distance ourselves from this phenomenon. I do not doubt that there are things bin Laden says which are legitimate and deserve our consideration, but three students at my high school lost their mothers on the planes which crashed into those towers. I think that the events of 9/11 legitimately rendered it difficult for bin Laden’s message to be received by the average American.

 

I’m not sure if this example is inappropriately lighthearted, but I will make it anyway because perhaps it is easier to think about, or at least it is for me: I truly think that Micheal Moore is an unfortunate character. He says things that are so important to say, and tries to get out messages which are so essential for people to hear, but he is so obnoxious that no one who disagrees wants to listen. I tend to agree with his viewpoints and I can’t even stand him. So in the end, the ways in which he expresses himself totally hurt his cause because to the people on the right, Moore is just more evidence that people on the left aren’t worth their time.

re: democracy and religion

Dear onceaweek,

I can respect your opinion, but don’t understand your point. You say that religion and democracy are incompatible because a central component of all three abrahamic religions is belief that they hold the exclusive truth and think very poorly anyone who does not agree. Actually I don’t see what this has to do with democracy at all. People adhere to secular political ideologies in much the same way (i.e. “those atheistic commie bastards should all be shot” or “those heartless capitalist pigs don’t care if the poor all die”) and one of the major ideals of democracy is for all conflicting viewpoints to have a voice. So what is it about religion that actually concretely hinders the essential functions of democracy? From what I have been able to observe it is actually secular forces like the health care industry lobbyists, massive public ignorance and apathy, corruption, and congressional inefficiency which get in the way of democracy.

re: too much symbolism

This nation is absolutely a Christian nation in some ways, but not in others. Christianity plays a large part in the public affairs in all levels of government all the way up through the Supreme Court and the Executive. In fact, many members of the religious right openly promote the idea that the US is a Christian nation and advocate for closer ties between Church and state. Examples of this can be seen in the removal of sex education and evolution from public school curriculum, and the raging debates over abortion and gay marriage are heavily loaded with religious fervor. As a non-Christian, I do not take fundamental issue with Christianity playing a role in our nation, but what I do take issue with is the level of hypocrisy and inflated sense of conviction often played out in American Christianity. The comments about that memorial are telling, especially the statement that the cross is a “universal symbol.” This statement holds a blatant marginalization of other faiths and a strong conviction that Christianity should trump all the rest. However, the reality is that America is remarkably diverse and even among those who fight and die for the nation we find people of all faiths. However, this case brings up a question related to our course material: there is really no such thing as a nation in modern times which contains only people of one faith. Given this, as we read authors who say that Islam is the answer to the world’s social ills, what do their ideas mean for non-Muslims in Muslim nations? If a nation were to be ruled exclusively by the Qur’an, would a memorial ever be built there with a cross?

Anger is shrouded in secrecy

John Allen Muhammad, the “Washington Sniper”, will be executed soon. An article from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8352735.stm) covers the latest and closes with a statement by a daughter of one of the victims who will be attending the execution: “He basically watched my dad breathe his last breath. Why shouldn’t I watch his last breath?”

 

This blog entry will not aim to criticize that statement or the person who made it. Her father was randomly picked out of a crowd and shot from a distance for no logical reason with any remote possibility of being identified. She is entitled to her pain and I cannot pretend to truly understand her experience. However, I do want to ask some questions about anger because the death penalty, whether you agree with it or not, is undeniably an act of violence and is very often carried out with the anger of the survivors in mind, be they loved ones of the murdered or society at large. With no value judgment in mind it is impossible to miss the sheer volume of anger in this woman’s words, and with her anger in mind the execution will have an audience.

 

Anger is this mysterious force which runs more of our world than anyone may want to realize. It is everywhere, and yet we deny its reality and pervasiveness. We wage war, not because we are angry or hurt, but because we are “right”. We may harshly discipline our children telling ourselves it is what is best for them, and not admitting that we are frustrated because our own lives are not what we had hoped for as children. We take revenge on those who have harmed us because it is “fair”. Often times, grief and anger translate into cries for justice, but “justice” (as is “right” and “fair”)  contains the ideal of objectivity, which in theory exists outside of human emotions. Then it follows: an act of “justice” carried out in anger is prone to be violent and cause harm. This begets loss and pain, which begets more anger, and in today’s world it seems as if we have learned that the proper outlet for anger is violence. Then it all continues and no one learns lessons from history because these patterns are so engrained. Instead of feeling angry, we think that we are righteous. I wish we could just realize that we are all human, and that we could look for comfort in other things besides violence.

 

What does Islam have to say about anger? At least of the individuals we have read this semester very much encouraged self-reflection and inner tranquility while discouraging actions of revenge. However, it is clear from the state of the world that some Muslims have fallen into the pattern of eye-for-an-eye which, if anything, renders East and West more similar than different. What is the chance that an Islamic revival could make the world a more peaceful place?

 

Re: What’s the point of it all?

I agree that there is often a tragic gap between activist efforts and impact and I know that personally I was brutally disillusioned in 2003 when the whole world took to the streets in protest of the US invasion of Iraq only to make no difference whatsoever. Since then I have often struggled with the question of how to make a difference in the world and am finding that it is a complicated question as the world’s problems are very complex and often when we go to solve a problem, our assessment of the original situation turns out to have been all wrong. Case in point: it was believed by some that if we got rid of Saddam Hussein then there would be democracy in Iraq because he was the only reason there was a dictatorship at the time, and the opposite of dictatorship is a peaceful democratic society. I don’t need to point out the flaws in this reasoning because in retrospect they are almost absurdly obvious. This point, that we often come up with solutions which are out-of-touch with the sources of the problem or what else lies underneath, is what has essentially led me towards more of an isolationist perspective. I think that truly it only makes sense to work on the problems in your own backyard and if you are to look very closely at your own backyard, you can become easily overwhelmed by all that needs to be done.

So here is a question: what does it mean from a practical standpoint that Islam is “Universal”? Does it mean that it will bring happiness to all individuals who practice it, or does it mean that the whole world can be governed by it on a macro scale in a system which actually works? The Muslim world is huge and diverse and Muslims live in very different cultures and social/political/economic contexts throughout it. So if a great Muslim thinker writes a book claiming to have all the answers, what is the real possibility that it will actually fix all these different societies which have such a variety of needs both spiritual and secular?

partition

Yes, two blogs in a row. Yes, I am behind on blogs. Don’t look at me like that, I’m not the only one here.

It was very interesting to read about Iqbal’s experiences with communalism on the subcontinent, as I had not previously had much exposure to the Muslim side of things. In previous courses I have taken, professors have presented communalism mostly from the perspective of Hindus (overwhelmingly condemning the Hindu nationalists, actually) and what happened on the Indian side of the border and I have never really been able to understand why anyone thought the partition would be a good idea, especially given how many people had to cross the border. Well that being said, I still don’t think I get it, so I was wondering if anyone could tell me a little about why it was done and if any benefit has come. Are Muslims somehow safer in the region because Pakistan was founded?

Re: Mozaffar’s comment/question upon Rumsfeld’s last post

Elmo think Rumsfeld has a point. Elmo not think it’s cool if media presents stories in a way that builds up a whirlwind of fear and hate in the general public.

In answer to Mozaffar, I have actually heard the identical argument many times made in defense of corporations who destroy the environment and exploit their workers. The way this invariably goes, is that I will make the point that I think it’s become a problem how the green lifestyle is shoved at us in such a way that we are supposed to feel guilty for not exchanging our light bulbs, using plastic bags, driving our cars, and cleaning our bathrooms with bleach, while no one says jack to corporations. There is nothing wrong with educating consumers about their responsibility towards environmental conservation, or promoting those sorts of everyday good choices. However, while all the focus is on this, there are massive factories in Latin America and Asia destroying local water supplies. So then, I have noticed that whenever I make that point to anyone or any class, I am told that the corporations have no responsibility to change on their own because they are just doing good business and looking out for their stockholders who are their primary responsibility to provide for. Both conservatives and liberals alike tell me this. However, I have much less money than the average corporation, so how am I not “just doing good business” if I buy the bleach cleaner because it is way cheaper and works much better? Why is it that the responsibility is all mine and we should turn a blind eye to the reckless actions of big companies? Again, not that I should NOT make efforts to engage in a green lifestyle, but I think it is obvious that a big factory has more of an impact that I do as an individual and it is okay to say that they should take some of that on whether I buy their products or not.

Okay, my point is it is the same for the media. People have the responsibility to get educated and seek the truth for themselves, but the media has a HUGE impact no matter what and I think the major networks and news outlets absolutely do recognize that they have the power to promote hate and fear and absolutely do communicate to the public with that in mind. I think this is wrong, or at the very least, highly unfortunate. It is unfortunate that doing good business and maximizing profit has come to subordinate moral responsibility and peace promotion.

Faith in science

In class we have discussed the idea of “faith in science” and whether or not things like science or capitalism can be construed as having characteristics of a religion.

This article reports on a miraculous appearance of Darwin’s face on a wall to which thousands of evolutionist pilgrims have flocked. It’s from the Onion therefore it’s a fake article, but I find it totally hilarious and when things are found to be totally hilarious it is often because they draw our attention to a bit of good ‘ol reality. This article is obviously poking fun at things like Catholic zealots getting ready to worship a grilled cheese sandwich with Mary’s face and uses a lot of language generally reserved for those sorts of situations. In reading the article, one could very easily substitute the name of Darwin and references to evolution and biology for corresponding aspects of Christianity, and it could easily be a real article from a real paper. But the fact that I find this so funny begs the questions, are there evolutionists out there who are really like this? Who really adhere to their set of beliefs and uphold them in what looks remarkably similar to sacred faith? I believe the answer is yes. I think it is important to realize how spectrums of belief- the right and the left, the religious and the scientific community, Muslim extremists and Christian extremists- which perceive themselves as polar opposites very often meet in tactics rendering everyone simultaneously hypocritical. In other words, two sides may rhetorically attack each other as lunatics, monsters, evil, terminally incorrect, etc, but then have so much in common it becomes difficult to tell the two apart.

Go read the article now that I’ve totally killed the humor.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/evolutionists_flock_to_darwin?